4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Łódź.
5.  On 14 October 1982 the applicant lodged a motion with the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court for the restitution of real property, the peaceful possession of which had been allegedly infringed by the Tuszyn Municipality.
6.  At hearings held in December 1982 the court informed the applicant that the repossession claim had to be lodged within one year from the date on which possession had been infringed and requested him to lodge a claim for acquisition of the land by prescription. The initial proceedings were stayed pending the examination of this claim.
7.  On 28 June 1983 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court confirmed that the applicant had acquired title to the estate and on 3 August 1983 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed.
8.  Upon the Tuszyn Municipality Office’s claim that the land at stake had been in perpetual usufruct and hence there was no point in taking it from the current users, the District Court decided not to resume the proceedings and stayed them to allow the possibility of a friendly settlement of the case to be explored.
9.  On 23 March 1987 the applicant requested the resumption of the proceedings as a settlement had not been reached.
10.  On 8 April, 10 May and 7 June 1988 hearings were held.
11.  On 1 July 1988 the proceedings were stayed due to the intervention of the perpetual user of the land.
12.  On 17 November 1992 the applicant complained to the President of the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court that her request of 1 June 1992 to resume the proceedings had not received a response from the court. On 18 February 1993 the proceedings were resumed.
13.  A hearing scheduled for 20 September 1993 was cancelled due to the illness of the judge.
14.  On 21 October 1993 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court declared that it lacked competence to examine the case, since the subject matter of the dispute exceeded the limit defined for district courts. It decided to transfer the case to the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court.
15.  On 15 November 1993 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court declared that it too lacked jurisdiction and returned the case to the District Court.
16.  On 18 January, 28 February and 6 April 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court held hearings and heard expert opinions.
17.  On 18 April 1994 the Tuszyn Municipality Office declared that it did not bear any responsibility for the acts of the State Treasury and that the competent authority to represent the Treasury in the case was the Piotrków Trybunalski District Office.
18.  On 7 May 1994 the President of the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court, in reply to the applicant’s administrative hierarchical complaint, found the length of the proceedings to be excessive.
19.  By its decision of 11 May 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Office was summoned to take part in the proceedings, but in a letter of 18 May 1994 it stated that it was not competent to take part and referred to the Tuszyn Management Board as the competent authority.
20.   On 14 June 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court delivered a judgment, ordering that the estate be restored to the applicant and dismissing the remainder of her claim against the State Treasury.
21.  On 25 April 1995 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
22.  On 18 September 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court stayed the enforcement of the judgment until the end of the proceedings concerning the transfer of ownership. The judgment was enforced after 8 February 2000, the date on which the Łódź Regional Court delivered its judgment (see paragraph 26 below).
23.  On 5 April 1983 the perpetual users of the land in question filed a claim against the applicant for transfer of property rights over the estate.
24.  On 25 June 1997 the Łódź Regional Court allowed the claim.
25.  On 27 January 1998, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court for reconsideration.
26.  On 8 February 2000 the Łódź Regional Court gave a judgment dismissing the claim against the applicant. On 23 November 2000 the judgment was served on her.